CBP/TRS 112/94
December 1993
Chesapeake Bay Policy
for the Introduction of
Non-Indigenous
Aquatic Species
Chesapeake Bay Program
Printed on
Recycled Paper '
-------
William Donald Schaefer Maryland Department Of Natural Resources Torrey C. Brown, M.D.
Governor Secretary
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401 John R- Griffin
Deputy Secretary
May 16, 1994
To: Implementation Committee
Living Resources Subcommittee
Exotic-Species Workgroup
From: Verna E. Harrison,
Living Resources Subcommittee
Re: Exotic Species Policy
Enclosed is a copy of the "Chesapeake Bay Policy for the Introduction of Non-Indigenous
Aquatic Species" as approved by the Bay Program's Executive Council. This Policy provides
the framework for coordinated decision making among the jurisdictions of the Chesapeake Bay
basin on issues which will benefit greatly from a cooperative effort. The document discusses
the policy on intentional introductions and the review process for a multi-jurisdictional ad hoc
panel which makes recommendations, based on potential risks, on state actions regarding permit
applications for first-time introduction. The document also discusses the policy on unintentional
introductions covering the areas of education and information, ballast water, monitoring, and
control and eradication methods.
I would like to extend special thanks to the Exotic Species Workgroup, chaired by Dan
Terlizzi and staffed by Frances Cresswell. Timing for the approval of this policy was
constricted and we appreciate the dedication given to develop a strong policy.
The Chesapeake Bay Program Office is distributing the Policy document. If you would
like multiple copies of the Policy, please contact Jennifer Gavin at 410/267-5721.
VEH/jcg
Enclosure
Telephone:
DNR TTY for the Deaf: 301-974-3683
-------
Chesapeake Bay Policy
for the Introduction of
Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species
December 1993
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
ADOPTION STATEMENT
We, the undersigned, adopt the following policy statement regarding the Chesapeake Bay Policy for
the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species:
"It shall be the policy of the Jurisdictions in the Chesapeake Bay basin to oppose the
first-time introduction of any non-indigenous aquatic species into the unconfined wa-
ters of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries for any reason unless environmental and
economic evaluations are conducted and reviewed in order to ensurejhat risks associ-
ated with the first-time introduction are acceptably low. The signatories to the Adoption
Statement are committed to sharing information and to carefully assessing through a
joint review process all proposed first-time introductions of non-indigenous aquatic spe-
cies in the Chesapeake Bay basin. The signatories to the Adoption Statement are also
committed to working together to prevent unintentional introductions of non-indigenous
aquatic species and to minimize the negative effects of undesired aquatic species within
the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem."
We accept the Policy Statement as a guide to controlling first-time introductions of non-indigenous
aquatic species, both intentional and unintentional, and to monitoring the aquatic habitats affected by
the introductions, to protect the ecological integrity of the Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries and other
surface waters in the Bay basin.
We recognize the need to commit long-term, stable financial support and human resources to the tasks
associated with protecting the indigenous and naturalized aquatic species and their habitats in the Chesa-
peake region.
Date
December 1993
For the Commonwealth of Virginia
For the State of Maryland
For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
For the United States of America
For the District of Columbia
For the Chesapeake Bay Commission
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Definitions:.. 1
. . _ v
Need fora Basin-Wide" Policy.... >....;.... 2
Scope of the Policy. 3
Policy on Intentional First-Time Introductions..... 4
Review Process 4
Policy on Unintentional Introductions............... 8
Education and Information. 8
Ballast Water 8
Monitoring — 9
Control Methods .'.' 10
^
Appendix A 13
Appendix B : 21
References 29
-------
INTRODUCTION
DEFINITIONS
Aquatic Species
Aquatic organisms such as fish, shellfish,
and aquatic plants. Birds, mammals and
other organisms, including marsh-dwellers,
that live in soil or otherwise on land are not
considered to be aquatic species.
Historic Range
Geographic area inhabited by a species at
the time of European Colonization of North
America.
Indigenous Species
A species which evolved on the North
American continent, was present at the time
of European Colonization, and is resident
within the Chesapeake Bay basin without
human manipulation.
Non-indigenous Species
For the purpose of this document, any
aquatic species, as defined herein, that
enters a watershed, as defined herein,
beyond that species' historic range.
Hatchery-produced hybrids and genetically
engineered organisms are also defined as
non-indigenous species, even if the parent
species or source organisms are indigenous
or naturalized.
Naturalized Species
A non-indigenous species, as defined herein,
which has been introduced into the
Chesapeake Bay or into a tributary
watershed (as defined by'the Chesapeake
Bay Nutrient Strategy) and has established a
self-sustaining population that has persisted
for at least ten years.
Non-Indigenous, Non-Naturalized Species
Species not native to any of the Chesapeake
Bay basin watersheds which have not
established self-sustaining populations there.
Some of the species in this group have never
been introduced, while others may require
continued introduction as part of stocking
programs or appear incidentally having
escaped from aquaria, .private or public
aquaculture, or research,facilities.
Watershed
The area of drainage which feeds a river, or
the bay. These areas, as originally mapped
by the Chesapeake Bay Program for the
Nutrient Reduction Strategy (see Figure 1),
have ecosystem importance to aquatic
species and are thus used in this policy.
Unconfined Waters
Any waters which could potentially flow
directly into the Chesapeake Bay or have
more than a minimal potential for
escapement into the Bay watershed. This
does not include confined (recirculation)
units.
Pathogen
Any viable biological agent capable of
producing disease.
Introductions
An introduction occurs when a non-
indigenous, non-naturalized species is caused
to enter a geographic area beyond its
historic range or its present naturalized
range. Introductions should not be confused _
with natural migrations or range extensions,
or other changes in distribution not directly
influenced by human activities.
First-time Introductions
Introductions of non-indigenous species
which occur after the time this policy is
-------
adopted by the signatory jurisdictions. An
introduction may be considered "first time"
if 1) the species is not indigenous or
naturalized, or 2) the jurisdiction has not
previously promulgated rules, regulations or
otherwise issued a permit allowing the
introduction of that aquatic species into an
unconfined system, excluding permits issued
for the purpose of research. The existence of
a permit or approval for the purpose of
research will not eliminate the need for the
review process outlined in this policy for \
intentional introductions in a watershed (as \
defined by the Nutrient Reduction Strategy),
for a purpose or in a manner not previously
approved. First-time introductions
specifically exclude non-indigenous,
non-naturalized species which are part of
ongoing stocking programs but which have
not established self-sustaining populations
and species previously approved for
introduction (e.g. rainbow trout). First-time
introduction includes allowing a species to
be stocked or cultured in a manner not
previously approved within a jurisdiction -
e.g., while tilapia may be approved for
confined system production, culture of
tilapia in outdoor raceways would be
considered a new introduction.
NEED FOR A BASIN-WIDE POLICY
The introduction of non-indigenous species
into an ecosystem has been known to create
problems for existing species in that
ecosystem. Further, in jurisdictions that
share an ecosystem, the decision of one
jurisdiction to permit the introduction of a
species can affect the ecosystem shared with
the other jurisdictions. The states of
Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, and
the District of Columbia, which share the
Chesapeake Bay basin and are signatories to
the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, seek
to institute a process by which they can
cooperate with one another in making
decisions regarding the introduction of
non-indigenous species. The goals for'such
a process are that it would:
(a) provide objective technical reviews of
proposed non-indigenous species
introductions to identify potential nuisance
species,
(b) provide the permitting decision-makers
with the best available information and
assessment regarding a non-indigenous
species' potential for becoming a nuisance in
the ecosystem or to human activities,
(c) create a mechanism for sharing
information among all Bay jurisdictions,
including Delaware, the District of
Columbia, Maryland, New ;York, {.
Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia,',
regarding species being considered by other
Bay jurisdictions, and
(d) not unduly lengthen or burden the
existing permitting processes within the
signatory jurisdictions.
Therefore a regional policy on non-
indigenous species that is embraced by all
Bay basin jurisdictions is preferable to an
array of individual jurisdictional policies or
regulatory philosophies that may vary
significantly. Existing policies, including
federal, regional and state ones, are briefly
summarized in Appendix A.
Formulation and adoption of a regional
strategy and suggested protocol for dealing
with non-indigenous species should be the
major review and control components of a
new policy established by jurisdictional and
federal agencies in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. This policy is based on the real
-------
concern that introduced species may carry a
lasting and adverse legacy if they become
established as reproducing populations,
expand their ranges, and affect native
species.
This policy is cautious with intentional
introductions and proactive with the threats
of unintentional introductions.
Concern over the environmental and
ecological consequences of non-indigenous
species was heightened by the disruption
caused by zebra mussels and resulted in
passage of the federal Non-indigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control
Act of 1990 which mandates development
and implementation of a comprehensive
program of prevention and remediation of
problems resulting from non-indigenous
introductions. Information on current control
programs for zebra mussel in the
Chesapeake watershed are contained in
Appendix B.
The Living Resources Subcommittee
(LRSC) of the Chesapeake Bay Program
was charged by the Implementation
Committee with developing a policy to
provide guidance to the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement signatories on the intentional
(e.g., rainbow trout) and unintentional (e.g.,
zebra mussel) introduction of non-indigenous
aquatic species in the Chesapeake basin.
In early 1992, the Living Resources
Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay
Program established the Exotic Species
Workgroup. The mission of this workgroup
is to coordinate regional information and
develop a strategy for dealing with the
introduction of non-indigenous aquatic
species into the Chesapeake Bay basin. A
major goal of the Exotic Species Workgroup
\
\
is to assist the signatories to the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement and other Bay
basin jurisdictions in identifying activities
that promote the prudent control of
non-indigenous aquatic species introductions.
This goal is consistent with the goal of the
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement: "provide
for the restoration and protection of the
living resources, their habitats and
ecological relationships,11 and the letter from
the Chesapeake Bay Commission to the
resource management agencies of the
signatory jurisdictions in 1992 which stated
that management of non-native species
anywhere within the Chesapeake Bay
watershed should be pursued on a regional
rather than a state-by-state or species-by-
species basis. The complete policy statement
of the Chesapeake Bay Commission can be
found in Appendix A.
SCOPE OF THE POLICY
This policy document considers only first
time introductions of non-indigenous, non-
naturalized aquatic species. Birds, mammals
and other organisms, including marsh-dwell-
ers, that live on land or in the soil are not
included in the scope of this policy.
-------
I. POLICY ON INTENTIONAL
FIRST-TIME INTRODUCTIONS
This policy is intended to be consistent with
the federal Non-Indigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990. Intentional introductions are made for
the purposes of aquaculture, recreational
fishing, biological controls, and research.
Background information on these pathways
of introduction can be found in Appendix B.
To provide guidance to the signatory \
jurisdictions in how certain objectives might \
best be reached, the Exotic Species
Workgroup will develop an Implementation
Plan to this policy which will contain an
overview of existing jurisdictional
approaches and a schedule for the
development of suggested protocols. The
Implementation Plan will be prepared and
submitted for review by the Exotic Species
Workgroup to the Living Resources
Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay
Program by September 30, 1994.
Aquatic species have extensive histories of
being translocated from one ecosystem to
another for a variety of purposes. Those
species which have colonized successfully in
the new ecosystem have proven both
beneficial and detrimental to the social and
economic sectors of our society and to that
ecosystem. Undesirable introduced species
have been a major factor in the loss of
biological integrity. With some introductions
come the concomitant introduction of
parasites, pests, predators, and other
biological entities which have forever
changed the local environments in which
they were introduced.
It is therefore the purpose of this policy to
reduce the risk of adverse consequences to
the environment and the associated biota in
a manner consistent with the federal act and
to do so in a spirit of cooperation for the
benefit of all.
REVIEW PROCESS: ^
To reduce the risks associated with
introducing undesirable non-indigenous
organisms, particularly those which have the
potential to harm the environment or
become a nuisance, the signatory
jurisdictions will implement the following
procedure for making decisions about the
intentional first-time introduction of
non-indigenous, non-naturalized aquatic
species:
• Proposals for all intentional first-time
introductions of non-indigenous, non-
naturalized aquatic species into the
unconfined waters of the Chesapeake
Bay watershed must be submitted for,;
review and approval by the:;,
appropriate agency of the jurisdiction <•
prior to the introduction taking;
place. The process for review and
approval is outlined under "Actions."
• All species currently approved for
aquaculture or stocking and the
conditions under which each may be
cultured or stocked at the present
time in each jurisdiction will be
considered as approved under this
policy for that jurisdiction.
ACTIONS
• To the degree possible, each jurisdiction
will provide a list of aquatic species
which they know to be indigenous or
naturalized to the Chesapeake Bay
watershed in accordance with the
definitions provided herein so that a
master list may be developed. A copy of
-------
this list shall be supplied to the Living
Resources Subcommittee.
• Each jurisdiction shall compile a list of
species currently approved for culture or
stocking/maintenance stocking within its
jurisdiction and the conditions and
methods by which sudi species is
allowed to be cultured or stocked. A
copy of this list shall be supplied to the
Living Resources Subcommittee.
• All proposals for a first-time intentional
introduction shall be made to the
appropriate jurisdictional agency.
1) The agency will review a request for an
intentional introduction, evaluating the
relative risks and benefits of the first-time
introduction.
As part of the review process for a first-time
introduction, there will be an evaluation to
determine whether monitoring the
surrounding habitats for occurrence of the
species to be introduced may be necessary,
and, if so, what means might be
appropriate.
At a minimum, evaluations should include
analyses of:
(i) the purpose and usage of the
proposed introduction;
(ii) long-term potential effects on
native species and ecosystems;
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action
including the potential for using
indigenous or naturalized species;
(iv) proposed culture or stocking
method for introduction if approved;
(v) means of monitoring, if necessary;
(vi) review of information on known
pathogens of proposed introduction and
its source; and
\
\
(vii) economic consideration.
2) Where the introduction involves non-
indigenous, non-naturalized species, and the
submittal is adequate to be considered for
future agency action, the jurisdiction will
notify the Living Resources Subcommittee,
sending copies of the application and
supporting documentation from the agency's
review process. The-Living Resources
Subcommittee will then coordinate an
independent review and evaluation of the
proposed intentional introduction.
a) Reviews should include appropriate
environmental and economic evaluation.
b) Jurisdictions will notify the Living
Resources Subcommittee of first-time
introductions into jurisdictionally-
approved closed systems in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed in accordance
with procedures to be established in the
Implementation Plan. This notification
does not require review by an ad hoc
panel, but it will include a description of
the closed system involved.
c) The Living Resources Subcommittee
will work to share information regarding
system types and to develop guidelines
with respect thereto.
3) An ad hoc panel shall be formed by the
Living Resources Subcommittee upon
receipt of copies of the permit application
and supporting documentation from the-
jurisdictional agency. <
Each such panel shall be comprised of one
representative each from Virginia,
Maryland, the District of Columbia, and
Pennsylvania, named by those jurisdictions,
whose backgrounds shall be of a technical or
-------
scientific nature appropriate to review the
species in question. The Living Resources
Subcommittee, after consultation with STAC
(the Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee) shall invite at least two other
scientists or technicians having expertise on
the species in question or with similar
species to serve on each such panel. An
economist or other specialist may also be
required. The goal here is to enhance
information available to the permitting
agencies. The ad hoc panels should be kept \
as small as possible so that they remain \
workable.
4) Each ad hoc panel shall complete its
review of a proposed introduction within 45
to 60 days from the date that the Living
Resources Subcommittee receives copies of
the permit application and supporting
documentation. In cases in which review is
required in shorter periods of time, the ad
hoc panel will do its best to comply with the
compressed deadline.
The signatory jurisdictions are committed to
reviewing their permitting processes to
determine whether their processes are
compatible with the ad hoc panel review
procedure.
5) Each ad hoc panel shall provide advice to
the jurisdiction permitting authority
regarding the potential of the species in
question to harm the ecosystem or to
become a nuisance to human activities, in
accordance with the following:
a) It is recognized that the task of the ad
hoc panel is advisory. The authority of
issuing a permit lies within each Bay
jurisdiction.
b) The majority opinion and ^ the
dissenting opinion (if any) will both be
given.
c) The Living Resources Subcommittee
will use the information obtained from
the various ad hoc panels to provide an
information exchange network including:
species specific protocols, notification of
escapes, unexpected dispersals, or illegal
introductions that may affect other
member jurisdictions.
6) After receiving the advice of the ad hoc
panel, the jurisdictional permitting
authority will decide to approve or
decline the proposed introduction.
7) The jurisdiction will give notification of
that decision to the Living Resources
,, Subcommittee. ;; ,
8) An agency may petition another agency to
modify or reverse its position regarding the
permitting of future introductions if:
a) additional information becomes
available to demonstrate substantial
harmful consequences to the ecosystem;
or
b) the scopes or conditions of future
introductions substantially expand upon
those approved previously by rules,
regulations or permits and increase
substantially the risk of harm to the
ecosystem. „
When the decision has been in favor of any
intentional first-time introduction, the
Subcommittee will circulate this information
to all jurisdictions in the Bay basin.
-------
If a decision is made by the permitting
agency in favor of the introduction contrary
to the majority opinion of the panel, the
jurisdiction will 1) provide a written
document to the Living Resources
Subcommittee, explaining the reasons for
that decision, particularly in relation to
potential threats to adjoining jurisdictions,
and 2) defer implementation for a 3 week
period to allow other Bay jurisdictions the
opportunity to notify affected parties in their
own jurisdictions of the decision.
\
If an agency acts to permit an introduction
against the views of another agency or the
ad hoc panel, adoption of this policy does
not imply the concurrence of the other
agency or the ad hoc panel.
• Each jurisdiction will develop or
establish lists of pathogens: one list for
those to be avoided, and one list for
which little concern is felt.
For the pathogens on both lists, appropriate
screening methods using pre-existing
guidelines, such as the American Fisheries
Bluebook, will be established. Each
jurisdiction will identify the responsible
agency for developing the lists of pathogens
and identify the screening method to be
used. The lists of pathogens will be
modified, or updated, at the jurisdiction's
discretion.
• Recognizing the diversity of viewpoint
for specific intentional introductions, e.g.
research, ornamentals and aquaculture,
efforts will be made to develop
collaborative programs such as the
"Critical 'Issue Forum" Special
Symposium with different governmental
agencies and user groups.
-------
H. POLICY ON UNINTENTIONAL
INTRODUCTIONS
The policy concerning unintentional
introductions covers four areas including
education and information, ballast water,
monitoring, and control and eradication
methods.
EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
The signatories to the Adoption Statement
recognize that prevention of unintentional
introductions of non-indigenous, non- x
naturalized aquatic species is-dependent on
education of citizens, government agencies
and industry. Information concerning species
of concern, transport mechanisms,
prevention and control for species of
concern should be made available.
OBJECTIVE:
The signatories to the Adoption Statement
will develop and maintain educational
programs and activities to increase public
awareness of issues related to unintentional
introductions of non-indigenous aquatic
species, their consequences and the value of
controlling undesired species, according to
the following guidelines:
• Enhance public awareness as part of
the Chesapeake Bay Program's
Communications Strategy and in
cooperation with educational programs
within the Chesapeake region including:
Sea Grant, natural resource agencies and
educational/outreach components of
research groups.
• Prepare and distribute materials
including: brochures, posters, ED cards,
fact sheets, and, if resources are
sufficient, video and television programs.
• Develop and implement a public
education program to expand the
monitoring program to include the
public, emphasizing preventive strategies
regarding public usage of waterways and
substrate examination. The Living
Resources Subcommittee will serve as a
clearinghouse for information regarding
exclusion methods to prevent
unintentional introductions. :
• Where there is a diversity of viewpoints
following an unintentional introduction,
special collaborative forums will be
developed to present the different
perspectives and lead to consensus as to •
actions among the concerned parties.:
BALLAST WATER
There is general consensus that ballast water i
discharge by ships is a significant source of
unintentional introductions of non-indigenous ?.
aquatic species to coastal and estuarine :.
waters of the United States and elsewhere. ;
The history of only one species, zebra
mussels, in the Great Lakes has dramatically
indicated the potential impact of such
unintentional introductions. This problem
must be addressed. Regulations mandated by
the federal Non-indigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990 relating to ballast water discharge in
the Great Lakes region became effective on
May 8, 1993. In the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, where there are no such
regulations, there is a considerable potential
for the unintentional introduction of-
non-indigenous organisms from this source.-
OBJECTIVE:
• Seek to eliminate or substantially
minimize the risks associated with the
discharge of ballast water in the
Chesapeake Bay.
-------
ACTIONS
1) Institute a panel consisting of user
groups, federal and state agencies, and
other interested parties, to identify and
develop options to eliminate,or
substantially minimize, the risks
associated with discharge of ballast water
into the Chesapeake Bay, with an
assessment of the financial, economic and
logistical pros and cons of each option.
Options for consideration include, but are
not limited to, the following which will
be explored concurrently:
a) Seek development of a national action
on ballast water appropriate to protecting
all United States waters.
b) In the absence of such a national
action, consider a mechanism for the
institution of voluntary regional
guidelines directing the mid-ocean
exchange of ballast water.
c) Explore other methods of eliminating
or substantially minimizing the risks
associated with discharge of ballast water
in the Bay.
2) The Chesapeake Bay Program, through
the Living Resources Subcommittee, will
encourage the timely completion and be
informed of the results of the National
Biological Introductions Shipping Study
currently being conducted in the
Chesapeake Bay.
\
\
MONITORING
Regional monitoring approaches have proven
to be extremely effective with both
indigenous and non-indigenous species,
facilitating the development and use of
standard sampling methods and allowing for
a timely information exchange. Monitoring
reports can be used in making
resource-related decisions by both the public
and private sectors. -
OBJECTIVE:
o The signatory jurisdictions will
encourage development of estuarine and
inland monitoring programs that will
provide for the early detection and
information on population levels of
aquatic non-indigenous, non-naturalized
species.
These programs will include both the pubb'c
and private sectors, augmented by citizen
monitoring, and using consistent sampling
protocols throughout the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, to insure the comparability of
results.
A jurisdiction will give notification to the
Living Resources Subcommittee if a
research or aquaculture facility (pubb'c or
private) detects an escape, if illegal
introductions are discovered, or if a species
of concern is found by their monitoring
program to have unexpected dispersal. This
information will be circulated to all
jurisdictions so that they can prepare control
measures for use if needed.
-------
CONTROL METHODS
Although prevention is the most effective
means of controlling the unintentional intro-
duction of non-indigenous species, it is
recognized that control or eradication meth-
ods are required to prevent dispersal of
non-indigenous species once they are intro-
duced. In addition, control methods are
required to reduce the impacts of non--
indigenous aquatic species on resource users
and the environment.
\
Current control methods include the follow- \
ing:
Chemical
Chemical methods include herbicides,
pesticides and oxidation of effluents.
Biological
Biological control agents are natural enemies
of pest species that are highly specific,
usually having coevolved with the target
species. As control methods, biological
agents are well-established and valuable
components of pest management practice in
terrestrial environments. However, their
application in aquatic systems is in its infan-
cy.
Mechanical
Underwater "mowing" devices are already
being used in the Chesapeake region to
control hydrilla. Other mechanical control
techniques are routinely used in the manage-
ment of impoundments in the region.
OBJECTIVES:
The signatories, as appropriate, will apply
or facilitate the application of control meth-
ods for non-indigenous aquatic species in
compliance with state and federal water
quality standards, and in consideration of
impacts on living resources, according'to the
following guidelines:
• Identify and review existing control
technologies and develop appropriate
recommendations for coordinated control
methods for undesired aquatic non--
indigenous species.
• Develop a plan of action for non-indig-
enous, non-naturalized aquatic species,
such as zebra mussels, in anticipation of
their expansion into the Chesapeake Bay
region, including public awareness,
prevention and treatment.
• In cooperation with the Chesapeake Bay
Program's Communication Strategy,
increase public awareness of control
methods for undesired non-indigenous
aquatic species through fact sheets, and
direct public contacts.
• Encourage the development of a national •
action on ballast water appropriate to
protect the Chesapeake Bay and all other
U.S. waters.
• Encourage programs and research direct-
ed at prevention and control of undesired
non-indigenous aquatic species.
These investigations should include the
identification of undesired non-indigenous
aquatic species in the Chesapeake region,
followed by assessment of origins, method
of introduction, ecological and economic,
impact in the region, and finally, controL
recommendations.
10
-------
LJ!
Figure 1. The ten tributary watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay basin
as presented in the 1992 Progress Report of the Baywide Nutrient
Reduction Revaluation (Chesapeake Bay Program).
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF EXISTING REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE INTRODUCTION OF
NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN
The Chesapeake Bay Policy for the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species is intended
to be consistent with the federal Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
of 1990. Many of the definitions are taken from the federal documents.
Federal Policy
The Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 established an
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force with the responsibility to prevent introduction and
dispersal of aquatic nuisance species, to monitor, control and study such species, and to
disseminate related information. x
This act also provides an intergovernmental mechanism for the development of a cooperative
national program to reduce the risks of or prevent the unintentional introduction and dispersal
of non-indigenous aquatic species that may be nuisances; ensure prompt detection of the presence
of and monitor changes in the distribution of non-indigenous aquatic species; and control
established aquatic nuisance species in a cost-effective, environmentally sound manner.
Regional Policy
The only regional policy for non-indigenous species that has been developed in the Chesapeake
Bay basin was issued by the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
• On May 8, 1992, the Chesapeake Bay Commission unanimously adopted the following policy
statement:
It is the policy of the Chesapeake Bay Commission to oppose the introduction of non-native
species into the Chesapeake Bay watershed for any reason unless comprehensive
environmental and economic impact studies are conducted and thoroughly evaluated in order
to ensure that risks associated with the introduction are minimized. Proposals for the
introduction of non-native species should be subjected to an extensive review process that
provides for ample peer review by the Exotic Species Workgroup and others prior to the
final decision-making process.
• In a May 20, 1992 letter sent to the resource management agencies in Pennsylvania,^
Maryland, the District of Columbia and Virginia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission stated that
the management of non-native species anywhere within the Chesapeake Bay watershed should
be pursued on a regional rather than a state-by-state or species-by-species basis and urged each
state agency to'"weigh the position of the Chesapeake Bay Commission in any pertinent policy
decision or action."
13
-------
State Policies
Individual Bay basin jurisdictions have regulations pertaining to the introduction of non-
indigenous or non-native species.
SIGNATORY STATES
District of Columbia
The District of Columbia has rules that establish guidelines for the management of fisheries and
wildlife resources. These guidelines and procedures provide for implementation of the Water
Pollution Act of 1984, which mandates protection of aquatic animals -and plants and the
restoration and preservation of aquatic life in the District's waters for aesthetic enjoyment,
recreation and industry. The^purpose of these^ules is to ensure that the District's fisheries and
wildlife resources are properly managed and protected.
With regard to the introduction of non-indigenous species, the guidelines are simple and clear.
Section 1503.1, Prohibited Activities:
It shall be unlawful to do any of the following:
a) Introduce any species of fish or other aquatic organism not indigenous to the District
of Columbia into the waters of the District of Columbia.
Maryland
In Maryland, the Tidewater and Fish, Heritage and Wildlife Administrations of the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) regulate the introduction of non-indigenous aquatic species (Code
of Maryland Regulations). With regard to one non-indigenous mollusk species, the zebra mussel
(Dreissena polymorpha), a section of the regulations pertaining to shellfish, (COMAR
08.02.08.02) states: "Except as permitted by the Secretary of Natural Resources, a person may
not import into the state or possess any living life stage or reproductive products of mussels of
the genus Dreissena." For other species of shellfish taken from waters outside the waters of the
state, a person may not import or possess any of these species within Maryland, unless they first
obtain a permit from DNR. This section of the regulation goes on to say that "the Department
shall issue a permit if presented with proof satisfactory to the Department that the shellfish will
not be harmful to Maryland shellfish." For these regulations, the term shellfish includes live
oysters, seed oysters, oyster shells, live hard-shell clams, live soft-shell clams, and clam shells.
In COMAR 08.02.11.05K, the term "indigenous fish species" is defined by Maryland as "any-
fish species that naturally occurs in, or has been artificially introduced into, the waters of the
state, and has established self-sustaining populations for at least ten years." To protect fish
populations in the non-tidal waters of the state, a person may not introduce into the non-tidal
waters, or import or possess for introduction, any live fish not indigenous to the non-tidal waters
of the state without first obtaining a permit. A permit will not be granted until satisfactory proof
is provided by the applicant that the specific fish intended to be imported will be free of any
14
-------
communicable disease at the time of importation and will not be harmful to the native flora and
fauna in the non-tidal waters.
The provisions of the Maryland regulations in COMAR 08.02.11.05K that deal with importation
and possession do not apply to fish for use in laboratories and exhibitions, or for use as pets.
Any fish not indigenous to the waters of the State shall be held only in aquaria and other indoor
facilities from which escape into the waters of the state is impossible. Hence, except for the
specific provision directed at zebra mussels, Maryland does not prohibit nor is a permit required
for the importation of non-indigenous species for research purposes, provided the species are
confined indoors and cannot escape into state waters. -
Maryland also has regulations (COMAR 08.02V14) pertaining to non-native fish and aquatic plant
species related to aquaculture. The stated purpose of these regulations is "to encourage the
orderly development of an aquaculture industry in Maryland, while ensuring that aquaculture
operations do not adversely impact upon the state's wild stocks of fish." In this section of the
regulations, the phrase "non-native" species means "a species of fish that is not native or
naturalized...". A native species means "any species offish which historically has lived, grown,
and reproduced in Maryland's waters." A naturalized species means "any species of fish which,
though not indigenous to Maryland, has acclimated, or adapted to life in Maryland's waters so
that the species has been documented as having lived, grown, and reproduced in Maryland for
more than ten years."
Any person who wishes to engage in aquaculture in Maryland (the commercial rearing of fish
or aquatic plant species listed in COMAR 08.02.12.07) must first obtain a permit from DNR.
A permit will not be issued if the proposed aquaculture activity will adversely affect wild stocks
of fish; result in the release of non-native species into Maryland waters, except in confined water
such as ponds where there are safeguards to prevent escape; or result in the contamination of
native or naturalized species of fish or their ecosystem. A facility that is permitted to culture
non-native and hybrid finfish in non-tidal waters may not discharge its effluent directly or
indirectly into Maryland without approved treatment. Maryland also requires that imported
hybrid or non-native finfish shall be certified by an authority acceptable to DNR to be free of
known, infectious disease that have the potential to contaminate native or naturalized fish or
aquatic plants.
Anyone wishing further information on Maryland regulations is referred to the Code of
Maryland: Title 08, Subtitle 02, Chapters 08, 11 and 14; and the Natural Resources Articles,
Sections 4 and 10, Annotated Code of Maryland.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture: Under Act 66 of 1993, the Pennsylvania Department
of Agriculture has the authority to regulate the health of all domestic animals, including those
wild or semi-wild animals held in captivity. The Commonwealth interprets "animal" to include
all fish, invertebrates, and other members of the taxonomic Animal Kingdom. The Department
of Agriculture is seeking a consolidation of all Pennsylvania animal health statutes into a new
15
-------
"Domestic Animal Act." Once this legislation is enacted, the Department will work with the
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission to draft and promulgate any necessary fish health
regulations.
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission: The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Code of 1980 (Act
1980-175, Title 30, Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, 30 Pa. C.S.§§etseq.) provides authority
for the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission to promulgate general and specific regulations
about fish and fishing in Pennsylvania. The following provisions apply: ;
_ !;
30 Pa. C.S. § 102 defines shows "fish," when used as a noun, to include all game fish, fish
bait, bait fish, amphibians, reptiles and aquatic organisms.
\
30 Pa. C.S. § 2102(a) authorizes the Fish,and Boat Commission to make such general and-.
special regulations as it deems necessary and appropriate concerning fish and fishing in the
waters of Pennsylvania, the protection, preservation and management of fish and related:
matters.
30 Pa. C.S. § 2102(c) authorizes the Commission to make regulations concerning the
transportation or introduction of, or importation into or within this Commonwealth orr;
exporting of fish, the selling, offering for sale of purchase of fish or the disturbing of fish
in their natural habitat.
30 Pa. C.S. § 2904 authorizes the Executive Director, with the approval of the Commission,
to require permits for the taking, catching, killing, possession, introduction, removal,
importing, transporting, exporting or disturbing any fish in Pennsylvania waters. The;
Commission may set fees for the permits and make rules and regulations concerning the
issuance and provisions of the permits.
30 Pa. C.S. Chapter 33 contains requirements for artificial propagation licenses and provides
that no person may artificially propagate any fish in Pennsylvania without a license issued
by the Fish and Boat Commission (30 Pa. C.S. § 3312). In addition, this chapter requires
licenses or permits for live fish dealers and for transportation of live fish in Pennsylvania.
Title 58. Pennsylvania Code contains regulations promulgated by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission.
Chapter 71, "INTRODUCTION OF FISH INTO COMMONWEALTH WATERS \
subsection 71.3 (b), provides for the issuing of limited propagation license subject to
additional restrictions. These are used to permit non-indigenous fish species to closed system
aquaculture.
Chapter 73, "TRANSPORTATION OF LIVE FISH INTO THE COMMONWEALTH"
subsection 73.1 (a) states "No species of fish may be transported into this Commonwealth
from another state, province, or country and liberated in any watershed of the
16
-------
Commonwealth without previous written permission for the Fish and Boat Commission. Nor
may any species of fish be transferred from any water within the Commonwealth into any
other drainage of the Commonwealth where this particular species is not always present
without prior written consent from the Fish and Boat Commission. Inspection for species
composition or presence of disease, or both, will be required at the discretion of the Fish and
Boat Commission on all lots of fish transported into the Commonwealth."
References to grass carp in Chapters 71 and 73 have been changed by Fish and Boat
Commission action which provided for the issuing of permits for the use of triploid grass
carp in Pennsylvania beginning January 1, 1994.
Virginia
In Virginia, regulations pertaining to non-indigenous species are administered by the Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries (freshwater species) and under the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission (saltwater species). Under regulation VR325-01-2 (Virginia Department of Game
and Inland Fisheries), Section 4, it is unlawful to import, cause to be imported, buy, sell or
offer for sale or liberate within the state several species unless a permit is obtained. These
species are: rudd (genus Scardinius), tilapia (any of the genera Sarotherodon and Oreochromis),
piranha (any of the genera Serrasalmus, Rooseveltiella, Pygocentrus, or Taddyella), walking
catfish (genus Clarias), grass carp (genus Ctenopharynogodon), African clawed frog (Xenopus
spp.), and zebra mussel (Dreissena pofymorpha). It is also unlawful in Virginia to stock any
species of fish into any public inland waters without first obtaining a permit from the Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries. Under regulation 28.2-825 (Virginia Marine Resources
Commission), it is unlawful to import any fish, shellfish or Crustacea with the intent of placing
such organisms into the waters of the Commonwealth unless the organism is coming from an
approved list of states and waters, and unless it is on an approved species list. If the species or
source is not on the approved lists, the person desiring to import may notify the Commissioner
of Marine Resources and receive written permission.
Anyone wishing further information on Virginia regulations is referred to the Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries regulation VR325-01-2, and the Virginia Marine
Resources Commission regulation 28.2-825.
NON-SIGNATORY STATES
New York •
In New York, importation and stocking of triploid (sterile) grass carp became legal for the
purpose of pond vegetation control in 1990. Requirements for the pond into which the triploid
grass carp were to be introduced were very strict: 5 acres or less in size, having no inlets or
outlets to or from other waters, lying wholly within the boundaries of lands privately owned or
leased by the individual authorizing the treatment, harboring no species of wildlife, fish,
17
-------
shellfish, Crustacea or plants of special concern, threatened or endangered, not contiguous to a
New York State regulated freshwater wetland. Effective March 12, 1993, New York is allowing
the stocking of triploid grass carp in ponds with inlets or outlets to other waters, provided that
the ponds are not impoundments or natural ponds on a permanent stream or a source of a
permanent stream as designated by the most recent U.S. Geological Survey or New York State
Department of Transportation quadrangle covering the permit application site.
In May, 1991, New York added section 11-0507-4 to the environmental conservation law. It
now reads: No person shall intentionally liberate zebra mussels (Dreissena pofymorpha) into any
waters of the state. No person shall buy, sell, or offer to buy or sell, or intentionally possess or
transport zebra mussels except under a license or permit. Zebra mussels, except those lawfully
held pursuant to a license or permit, may be Destroyed by any person at any time.
: • \
The regulations about wildlife and fish require permits for placing fish or fish eggs in the waters
of the state, or for willfully liberating wildlife. Permits are also required to possess, transport,
import or export species of live native or non-native wildlife or fish where such actions would
present a danger to the health or welfare of people in the state, and individual or indigenous fish
or wildlife populations. Licenses are required to collect, possess or sell fish, wildlife, shellfish,
Crustacea and aquatic insects, and the Department has the power to make regulations to protect
the animals from cruelty, disease or undue discomfort and to protect the public from attack or
contamination. Fish or shellfish which hinder the propagation of food fish or shellfish/may be
removed by the state, or by an individual permitted by the state, in any manner the state may
prescribe from public or private waters.
Anyone wishing further information on New York regulations is referred to the environmental
conservation law 11-0507, 11-0511, 11-0515, and 11-0517, and the 1991 amendment regarding
zebra mussels. Also see the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Division of Fish and Wildlife Policy on triploid grass carp use (revised 3/12/93).
Delaware
In Delaware, triploid grass carp became a legal method of aquatic weed control beginning
January 1, 1990. Permits are issued to private pond owners meeting a set of criteria, including
escape prevention, demonstrated need for aquatic plant control, the aquatic plants in question
are known targets of the grass carp, the carp must be triploid and stocked at a controlled rate,
the state must have access to the pond for evaluation, the pond must not contain rare, threatened
or endangered plants or animals, and must not be in any designated natural area or a freshwater
marsh wetland. The grass carp must be certified as triploid by the USFWS or by another agency v
approved by the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Other laws governing the introduction of aquatic species exist for oysters and aquaculture.
Written permission from the state agency is needed to bring live oysters or seed oysters intoithe
state and place them in Delaware waters. Permits are needed for aquaculture of any specie^ A
facility to be used for restricted species (black bass, grass carp, hybrid striped bass, and all non-
18
-------
native species of finfish and shellfish) must have Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control approval. The walking catfish is prohibited.
Anyone wishing further information on Delaware regulations is referred to regulation 2112 for
material on oysters, the memorandum of understanding between the Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control and the Department of Agriculture (May, 1992), and the
grass carp policy (January, 1990; revised 1993).
West Virginia
In West Virginia, a fish importation permit allows an individual to import and haul native game,
food, and sport fishes. However, the introduction of exotic fishes or those not native to this state
is strictly prohibited. All persons must be legally licensed to propagate or sell fish, amphibians
or other forms of aquatic life. Those persons legally entitled to propagate and sell fish,
amphibians and other forms of aquatic life are also allowed to transport such beyond the limits
of the state. All imported wildlife shall be subject to inspection by authorized agents of the
department and such inspections may include biological examinations and the removal of a
reasonable sample of fish or eggs for such purposes.
Permits to import triploid grass carp may be obtained if a pond owner has the pond inspected
by proper state personnel, follows the required application process and orders the fish from an
approved producer of certified triploid grass carp. Only triploid grass carp may be imported
under any circumstances. A certificate issued by the USFWS is required from their authorized
point of origin.
Anyone wishing further information on West Virginia regulations is referred to Chapter 20 of
the Code of West Virginia and the annual fishing regulations.
19
-------
20
-------
APPENDIX B
This appendix contains background information including a general overview of the problem of
non-indigenous species introductions, pathways of introduction, and the model monitoring
program developed in the Chesapeake Basin for zebra mussels.
History
Aquatic species have been translocated from one ecosystem to another throughout history. These
introductions have affected the social and economic sectors of our society and the ecosystems
into which they were introduced. Some of our most familiar species are both non-indigenous and
beneficial, many of them being important in agriculture. Apples, oats, wheat, cattle and chickens
are just a few examples. Others have had negative impacts, both economically and ecologically.
Examples are the array of now-familiar species such as common carp, starling, gypsy moth and
Japanese beetle. Non-indigenous aquatic species are introduced intentionally, such as for
aquaculture, or unintentionally, such as in the release of ballast water from trans-oceanic ships.
The rate of introduction of non-indigenous species has increased with human population growth,
construction of canals, and transportation throughout the world. This is particularly threatening
in aquatic environments because non-indigenous species are more likely to succeed there than
in terrestrial conditions due to the greater uniformity of aquatic habitats.
The introduction of a non-indigenous species can appear, initially, to be beneficial from an
economic or environmental perspective. However, there are numerous examples of introductions
that have resulted in serious environmental impact. The Chesapeake region has been adversely
impacted by past introductions including the aquatic plant Hydrilla verticillata (hydrilla), the
bivalve Corbicula flumnea (Asian clam), and the oyster disease organism, Haplosporidium
nelsoni (MSX). More recent invaders include a Japanese crab (Hemigrapsis sangidneus) that
threatens marsh areas of the mid-Atlantic region. There is also concern that phytoplankton
species capable of causing toxic blooms are being introduced into the Chesapeake Bay via ship
ballast discharges.
The Chesapeake basin is preparing for the arrival of the zebra mussel, a prolific freshwater
fouling agent, that may become established in low salinity regions of tributaries and the
important nursery areas of the northern Chesapeake. In the short interval since its introduction,
the zebra mussel has proliferated throughout the Mississippi River, extended into the lower
Hudson River and is approaching the Chesapeake basin via the Susquehanna River. The rapid „
dispersal of zebra mussels through the eastern United States has increased awareness of the risks,
associated with introductions.
The Chesapeake region has already experienced the ecological and economic consequences of
non-indigenous species. The oyster parasite MSX has been introduced into oyster populations
via shipment of infected oyster stock into Massachusetts and perhaps Delaware and Chesapeake
Bays. This parasite is a factor in devastating mortalities in oyster populations and the associated
21
-------
decline of the Chesapeake oyster industry. Other non-indigenous species are now naturalized in
the region as a result of both intentional and unintentional introduction. For example, Littonna
Uttorea is a European native that is now widely distributed throughout marshes of the mid-
Atlantic, the Asian clam is distributed throughout the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, and
the Japanese crab Hemigrapsis sanguineus is well established in the coastal areas surrounding
the Chesapeake Bay. '.
Currently there are no real predictive capabilities with regard to environmental risk and the
frequency of non-indigenous species invasions of a region, but it is clear that the Chesapeake
region could ill afford, ecologically or economically, the costs associated with an introduction
like the Great Lakes nave experienced with the zebra mussel. While the zebra mussel does filter
excess phytoplankton in the Great Lakes, the costs associated with its ability to clog industrial
pipes have been immense. In the Great Lakes region alone, clean-up, repair, and control costs
are expected to run into billions of dollars over the next decade. Increased public awareness
through education will be required to prepare residents for the consequences of introductions and
to help prevent further dispersal of non-indigenous species once they arrive.
A recent example of public awareness leading to preventive actions was the decision by the,
Department of Public Works of the City of Baltimore to close its reservoirs temporarily .to
boating to prevent introduction of zebra mussels. This closure was designed to enable the city
to determine and implement appropriate treatment methods. This ban was lifted in 1993 and:
replaced by a ban on the use of aquatic baits in the reservoir since it was felt that water from
bait suppliers might be a mechanism of zebra mussel introduction. It is anticipated that this;
second ban will be lifted when a State-developed certification program is enacted to ensure that
suppliers of aquatic bait are free of zebra mussel contamination.
Pathways of Introduction
The framework of a non-indigenous species introduction policy for the Chesapeake Bay basin.
should be linked to potential introduction pathways, both intentional and non-intentional. Most
intentional introductions of non-indigenous aquatic species are made for aquacultural or
recreational fishing purposes. The introductions of Tilapia species and striped bass x white bass
hybrids are examples of these kinds of non-indigenous species introductions. The aquarium trade
is another important introduction pathway. Hydrilla blooms in Chesapeake tributaries can be
traced to plants introduced to Florida via the aquarium trade. Asian clams were being sold in
aquarium shops in Pennsylvania before they were found in the Susquehanna River drainage.
Non-indigenous aquatic species are also being intentionally introduced as biological control
agents for various pest species, many of which are also non-indigenous. For example, over 30
states permit the introduction of grass carp for control of aquatic vegetation in ponds.
Transoceanic ship ballast water is another pathway by which non-indigenous aquatic species can
be unintentionally introduced. One aquatic species that has been inadvertently introduced with
detrimental consequences via ship ballast water is the zebra mussel.
22
-------
Research projects can also inadvertently release non-indigenous test organisms from laboratory
facilities to the environment. ,
Aquaculture, Stock Enhancement and Restoration Introductions
Although shipping has been the primary dispersal agent for freshwater and marine non-
indigenous species, the intentional introductions of the aquaculture industry and related fishery
activities such as stocking by public agencies have also played an important role. Probably the
most notorious example of a fish introduction leading to environmental problems was the
introduction of the common carp from Europe into the United States in the 1800's. Although
highly regarded as an aquaculture and recreational species in Europe, the carp was not readily
.accepted into the U.S. diet! Its feeding behavior coupled with its high reproductive rate has
created habitat disruption leading to changes in gamefish populations.
\
Other fish introductions have had less clear consequences. The brown trout was introduced into
Michigan in 1883 and is regarded by many as an example of a successful introduction. However,
others object to the introduction of brown trout in other places due to the impacts on existing
rainbow trout and brook trout fisheries. In the Kern River of California, the native golden trout
was displaced by brown trout. Thus, even those intentional introductions that are successful in
some situations are not as successful in others, resulting in some environmental cost. Most often
this cost is loss of biodiversity.
Stock enhancement and restoration programs have been a traditional and important activity used
by natural resource agencies and public groups to increase the availability of aquatic species,
including plants, fish, mollusks and crustaceans, for ecological, recreational and commercial
benefit. Stock enhancement programs for salmon, trout, American shad, striped bass, oysters,
and other species have been conducted in the Chesapeake Bay watershed using sources of these
species from other watersheds throughout the United States and Canada. American shad from
the Susquehanna River basin were used to stock Pacific Northwest waters years ago.
While the value of such activities is recognized, it is also recognized that some control over
these introductions is required to ensure that inadvertent escape of non-indigenous organisms into
the environment or into wild populations of plants, fish, mollusks or crustaceans. Furthermore,
such activities have long been recognized as risks to the receiving waters from the introduction
of non-indigenous pathogens and opportunistic free-living organisms which are carried in the
transport water. While such introductions of pathogens are unintentional, they are closely
associated with intentional introductions and therefore must be considered together. Salmon and
trout have been introduced to the northeastern US via the Pacific Northwest and with them came
bacterial kidney disease, and enteric redmouth disease-causing pathogens.
Aquaculture benefits the region through economic development, and support of recreational
fisheries. The aquaculture industry of the Chesapeake region is highly diverse including a variety
of freshwater (catfish, trout, hybrid striped bass, Tilapia) and marine species (oysters, striped
bass, clams and scallops) in a variety of culture systems including open ponds, raceways and
recirculation systems. Carlton (1992a) recently presented a summary of mechanisms of
23
-------
introduction via aquaculture based on deliberate release including grow-out, experimental
systems, and biocontrol. All of these potential introduction mechanisms are part of the
developing aquaculture industry of the Chesapeake basin.
With increased development of the aquaculture industry there is increased risk. Welcome (1988)
noted "species originally introduced for aquaculture eventually escape from the confinement of
their ponds, but not always to colonize natural waters". Shelton and Smitherman (1984) stated
"For whatever purpose an exotic fish is used, escape is virtually inevitable; thus, this eventuality
should be considered". Thoughtful development of aquaculture in the Chesapeake region should
proceed with awareness of the risks that the inevitable releases of non-indigenous species from
an active aquaculture industry entail. Further development of this industry in the Chesapeake
region will proceed in parallel with development worldwide but should be based on policies that
provide adequate protection without being simply prohibitive.
Biological Control Introductions "
A variety of plant and animal species have been proposed for use as biological control agents
in aquatic systems, including insects, snails, fish, marine mammals, plants and plant pathogens.
Such introductions carry inherent risks, and therefore should be regulated or prohibited.
Aquatic vegetation control is an important issue region-wide due to the importance of fresh water
impoundments for recreational fishing, municipality reservoirs and as sources of water for
agriculture including: livestock watering, crop irrigation and aquaculture. Current management
practices for control of excess vegetation include prevention through water quality management,-;
chemical treatment, mechanical removal and biological control. All methods of control carry
questions about the ecological safety and effectiveness of the control relative to the risk of
introduction (Courtenay and Williams, 1992).
Research Introductions
The research introduction pathway for non-indigenous aquatic species may occur less frequently
than other pathways discussed in this policy document, but the consequences may be very high.
However, it is a pathway that can be more easily controlled than many others.
One effective way to control the research introduction pathway is through the development and
adoption of stringent protocols (or guidelines) for handling and containing non-indigenous aquatic
species and any associated diseases and parasites. Use of these protocols will allow important
research to be conducted, and yet minimize the chances that test organisms, or associated
diseases and parasites, will escape or be accidentally released into the environment.
^-
The first set of handling and containment protocols developed by the Fjcotic Species Workgroup
provide detailed guidelines for laboratory (i.e. closed-system) research on zebra mussels.and
other members of the genus Dreissena. The June 1993 draft document titled Protocols for
Conducting Research on Nonindigenous Mussels of the Genus Dreissena in the Chesapeake Bay
Basin will be available for Bay Program use upon the adoption of this Policy. These protocols
describe a process that state agencies in the basin could adopt and use to evaluate permit
24
-------
applications from scientific institutions who want to conduct laboratory research on Dreissena
mussels. Maryland's Department of Natural Resources has recently used them in a permitting
process that allowed two University of Maryland researchers to import live adult zebra mussels
into Maryland to conduct research projects in closed and recirculating facilities. This document
also offers one example of the kind of research protocols that could be developed by the Exotic
Species Workgroup for other non-indigenous species as the need arises.
Allowing research to be conducted on non-indigenous aquatic species in situ while reducing the
elements of risk to acceptably low levels, will require the preparation and adoption of protocols
different from those referred to above for laboratory research on Dreissena mussels. These
protocols must address concerns about inadvertent disease or parasite transfers, and survival,
reproduction and proliferation of the test organisms in the environment. By definition, in situ
tests with non-indigenous aquatic species cannQt achieve the level of control possible in a closed-
system, laboratory research situation. Therefore, as the need arises in the Chesapeake Bay basin,
different protocols must be developed and followed for in situ research projects with non-
indigenous aquatic species.
Guidelines for minimizing the risks associated with the introduction of non-indigenous aquatic
species have been established by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas
(ICES). These guidelines should be considered in the development of research protocols for in
situ testing on non-indigenous aquatic species in Bay basin state waters to minimize the risk of
disease organism and parasite introductions. ICES guidelines require that broodstocks are held
under quarantine conditions and only disease- and parasite-free progeny from the imports are
used for the in situ tests.
With regard to concern about test organism reproduction and establishment of self-sustaining
populations in the environment, induced triploidy is a genetic manipulation that reduces the risk
of successful reproduction. These precautionary measures (use of disease- and parasite-free
progeny of quarantined broodstock and induced reproductive impairment) offer two approaches
to minimizing the environmental and economic risks associated with in situ testing of non-
indigenous aquatic species in the Chesapeake Bay basin.
Ballast Water/Ship Transport Introductions
Ballast-water transport is the movement of living organisms contained in the water ballast tanks
(not bilge water) of ships. Commercial shipping activity transports vast volumes of ballast-water
and associated organisms around the world daily. This mechanism can move marine and
estuarine organisms along and between coasts, and move freshwater organisms along waterways ,
and between continents. v
Water for ballast is pumped in bulk into the ballast tanks of vessels, either at dockside or as the
vessel moves through coastal waters. Consequently, any organisms present in the water column
may be pumped on board at the same time. While many of these organisms spend their lives in
the plankton, organisms which are benthic as adults are also transported in ballast-water as
planktonic larvae and during juvenile stages.
25
-------
Several lines of evidence indicate that many organisms released with ballast water are viable and
can successfully invade new ecosystems. The surveys in Oregon and Australia reported
successful laboratory culture of many non-indigenous taxa collected from ballast tanks, including
toxic dinoflagellates in Australia. Ballast-water transport has been proposed as the most probable
mechanism of introduction for more than 40 recently identified non-indigenous species
worldwide, including zebra mussels and European ruffe in the North American Great Lakes,
saltwater Asian clams (Potamocerbula amurensis) in San Francisco Bay, and ctenophores in the
Black Sea.
Recently there has been concern about the significance of ballast water discharge by ships in the
introduction of non-indigenous species. Regulations mandated by the Aquatic Nuisance and
Control Act of 1990 relating to ballast water, discharge in the Great Lakes Region became
effective on May 8, 1993. They require that all ships originating outside of the Economic
Exclusion Zone (EEZ) of the United States and Canada (i.e., 200 mile limit) exchange their
ballast water on the high seas before entering the B.B7-. The salinity of ballast water must be 30
parts per thousand or greater upon entering the Great Lakes, and ballast water will be monitored
by the U.S. Coast Guard. In the Chesapeake Bay watershed the major ports of concern are
Hampton Roads, Virginia and Baltimore Harbor, Maryland. Preliminary studies by Carlton
(pers. comm.) have detected crabs and fish in ballast water of ships in Baltimore Harbor.
The U.S. Coast Guard-sponsored National Biological Invasions Shipping Study (NABISS) has
identified the ports of Baltimore and Norfolk in Chesapeake Bay as Atlantic coast "hot spots";
for ballast-water discharge (J.T. Carlton, pers. comm.). Together, these two ports alone received
in excess of 3 billion gallons of foreign water and associated organisms in 1992. This constitutes
a regular and substantial inoculation with non-indigenous biota that are not well characterized.
Today, the single largest source of non-indigenous aquatic species is the worldwide movement
of ballast-water (Carlton, 1985).
The Chesapeake Bay Program, through the Living Resources Subcommittee, will support the
National Biological Introductions Shipping Study currently being conducted in the Chesapeake
Bay. This is the federal program initiated by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. This
effort is identifying amounts and sources of ballast water delivered to the Bay, and sampling
representative vessels for non-indigenous species in their ballast water.
Non-ballast water ship transport of non-indigenous species primarily involves fouling organisms
which live on or in the hulls of vessels. Such passive transport of fouling organisms undoubtedly
dates from the human species earliest attempts at boating. Although transport of fouling „
communities among ports and coastal regions was probably greatest in the days of sail, this
mechanism continues to move species among geographic regions in modern times. Carlton
(1985, 1989, 1992b) has recently reviewed the probable importance of shipping in transporting
fouling communities around oceans of the world.
26
-------
The Zebra Mussel and Its Monitoring Program
The zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, is an aquatic nuisance species which has expanded
its range rapidly in the Eastern and Central United States since it was first discovered in Lake
St. Clair in 1988. In the Chesapeake Bay drainage, it has only been found in the upper reaches
of the Susquehanna River, at Johnson City, New York. Although its distribution appears to be
currently limited to this portion of the Chesapeake Bay drainage, its range is expected to rapidly
expand, as it has in other watersheds, and zebra mussels may soon be unintentionally introduced
into other tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay.
Monitoring programs underway in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are unique,
being in place before the known presence of the target species. Effective monitoring methods
have been developed for larvae, settled juveniles, and adults.
\
In the development of monitoring plans for aquatic nuisance species, such as the zebra mussel,
a common protocol must be used. One example of such a network is the Susquehanna River
Basin Zebra Mussel Monitoring Protocol, conceptualized in 1992 by the Chesapeake Bay
Program's Exotic Species Workgroup, and implemented in March 1992, with the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) serving as" the clearinghouse. After a series
of meetings, a common monitoring protocol was agreed upon by participants, incorporating
standard methodologies for sampling larvae, settled juveniles, and adults (McMahon 1990;
Marsden 1992; Mussalli 1992). The actual monitoring was not initiated until several training
sessions were held, with uniform artificial substrate sampler devices provided by PADER.
Currently, 76 stations in the Susquehanna River - from New York to Maryland - are monitored
biweekly for zebra mussels by 18 different groups, including federal, state and municipal
governments as well as private industry and academic institutions. The use of a common
protocol allows for the quantification and comparability of results within this watershed, as zebra
mussels expand their range.
In Virginia, volunteer water quality monitors coordinated by the Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay are monitoring for zebra mussels at sites on the James, York, Elizabeth, Potomac and
Piankatank Rivers. Volunteers check weekly for the presence of zebra mussels on provided
plates. Sites have been chosen by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.
Potential exists for expanding the involvement of volunteer citizen monitors.
While the current level of monitoring for zebra mussels seems adequate, it is important to note
that the public has been alerted as to the general appearance of the zebra mussel and who to
contact should they find what appears to be one. This is essential to obtain needed presence or.
absence data, as there are-only a limited number of monitoring stations covering an extensive^
area. There are many more bank fishermen and recreational boaters than there are monitoring
sites, and it is likely that the public will first encounter a zebra mussel - knowingly or
unknowingly - before one is collected at one of the monitoring sites (Kraft 1993).
This approach, cooperative between states and regions and with active public participation, will
serve as a model for monitoring other non-indigenous species recognized as nuisance organisms.
27
-------
28
-------
REFERENCES
Carlton, J.T. 1985. Transoceanic and interoceanic dispersal of coastal marine organisms: the biology of
ballast water. Oceanographical and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 23: 313-374.
Carlton, J.T. 1989. Man's role in changing the face of the ocean: biological invasions and implications
for conservation of near-shore environments. Conservation Biology 3: 265-273.
Carlton, J.T. 1992a. Dispersal of Living Organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems as Mediated by Aquaculture
and Fisheries Activities. In: Dispersal of Living Organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems. Aaron Rosenfield
and Roger Mann (eds). pp. 13.^46. ,
Carlton, J.T. 1992b. Introduced marine and estuai;ine mollusks of North America: an end-of-the-20th-
century perspective. Journal of Shellfish Researcbxll: 489-505.
Courtenay, W.R. and J.D. Williams 1992. Dispersal of Exotic Species from Aquaculture Sources, with
Emphasis on Freshwater Fishes. In: Dispersal of Living Organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems. Aaron
Rosenfield and Roger Mann (eds.) pp. 49-81.
Jones, M.M. 1991. Marine organisms transported in ballast water-a review of the Australian scientific
position. Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Bureau of Rural Resources. Commonwealth of
Australia. Bulletin No. 11. 48 pp.
Kraft, C. 1993. Early detection of the zebra mussel, Dreissena pofymorpha. In: Zebra Mussels: Biology,
impacts, and control. T.F. Nalepa and D.W. Schloesser (eds.). Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, pp. 705-
714.
McMahon, R.F. 1990. The zebra mussel: U.S. utility implications. Macrofouling Consultants, Arlington,
Texas. Research Project 1689-24. Prepared for Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.
Marsden, J.E. 1992. Standard protocols for monitoring and sampling zebra mussels. Illinois Natural
History Survey. Biological Notes 138, 40 pp.
Mussalli, Y.G. 1992. Zebra mussel monitoring and control guide. Stone and Webster Environmental
Services, Boston, Massachusetts. Research Project 3052-03. Prepared for Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, California.
Reimer, D.N. 1984. Introduction to Freshwater Vegetation. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New
York. 207pp.
Shelton, W.L. and Smitherman, R.O. 1984. Exotic Fishes in Warm Water Aquaculture, p. 262-301. In^
Courtenay, Jr., W.R. and' Stauffer, Jr., J.R. (eds.), Distribution, Biology, and Management of
Freshwater Fishes. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Welcome, R.L. 1986. International Measures for the Control of Introduction of Aquatic Organisms.
Fisheries ll(2):4-9.
29
------- |